Возврат по транзакции

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so strongly: it explicitly warns 'НЕОБРАТИМАЯ ДЕНЕЖНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ', notes the confirm requirement indirectly through irreversibility, and clarifies that no refund reason exists in the API. This gives an agent the critical side-effect information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the most important warning. Every sentence contributes new information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a financial, irreversible operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core call requirements and side effects. It lacks detail about the response/return shape and error conditions, but an agent can invoke the operation correctly from this description plus the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaningful nuances: for a full refund the amount must equal the original transaction amount, the currency is taken from the original transaction, and no refund-reason parameter exists. It slightly underplays the required confirm parameter, but the schema fills that gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a clear action ('Создаёт возврат по транзакции') and specifies that only transaction ID and amount are needed. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wata_acq_refund_create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage context: refund is created from the original transaction, currency is inherited, full refund is achieved by using the original amount, and there is no refund-reason field. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.